Friday, August 10, 2012

Revolutions have a nasty habit of turning full circle. The so-called Arab Spring, which promised so much a year ago, has left disappointment and frustration in its wake. Ukraine's Orange Revolution of 2004 denied Viktor Yanukovych the presidency, yet today he is an all-powerful president and his chief opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, the symbol of the transformation of 2004-05, sits in prison.

Georgia, too, promised much after the Rose Revolution in 2003, when democracy breezed through this ancient country and replaced the ageing and authoritarian president Eduard Shevardnadze with a youthful and outward-looking clique headed by Mikheil Saakashvili.

But the Rose Revolution has also lost its bloom. A decade of rule by Saakashvili has left the country more divided, and its democracy more endangered, than at any time in its post-Soviet history. Saakashvili's own instincts appear to be growing ever more authoritarian.

Georgia goes to the polls in October to vote for a new parliament – shortly after my own country, the Netherlands. But there could scarcely be a greater difference between the two countries in terms of what is at stake. The Netherlands is used to consensual coalitions, sometimes encompassing left and right. Georgia is deeply polarised, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that these elections could either consolidate or smash apart the country's already fragile democracy.

Another important difference between these two forthcoming elections is the extent to which, in Georgia, the focus on personality is unrelenting. There is virtually no discussion about political programmes, or positioning on either the left or the right of the political programme. What political discourse there is relates largely to Georgia's external relations, and is coloured by Saakashvili's loathing for Russia.

The focus on personality is undoubtedly because Saakashvili is facing the first serious challenge to his dominance since he took office. Bidzina Ivanishvili, an entrepreneur, and his Georgian Dream coalition are mounting a credible opposition to Saakashvili's stranglehold on power. And because Saakashvili knows he has relatively few achievements on which to call for future support, he has taken to all manner of personal attacks against Ivanishvili. You might call it ‘Ivanishvilification'.

Whenever Ivanishvili is profiled, even in Western newspapers, he is described as a billionaire, as though success is a dirty word, or as if wealth is incompatible with political leadership. Saakashvili regularly denounces the consultants engaged by Ivanishvili to accentuate Georgian Dream's alternative vision of the country's future, conveniently glossing over the fact that Saakashvili's government has itself spent large sums of Georgian taxpayers' money trying to promote him and his government in the US and EU, not least in the public-relations war with the Kremlin during and after the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict.

Personal attacks are par for the course in politics. But the attacks directed at Georgian Dream go well beyond what is acceptable in a democracy. There appears to be a systematic attempt to undermine Georgian Dream's electoral prospects – through legal persecution, through manipulation of the press and through intimidation.

As president of Liberal International, the global family of liberal-democratic parties, I should declare an interest here: two of the parties in the Georgian Dream coalition are allied to Liberal International. But like all democrats, I believe democracy itself is more important than any party or movement. What Georgians need is a stable, fair and competitive political environment in which they can make free choices about their future.

This, however, seems unlikely. Leading human-rights NGOs are increasingly vocal in their criticism of the incendiary nature of politics in Georgia. The UN special rapporteur on the right of freedom of peaceful assembly and association has just tabled a report highlighting serious problems in Georgia. Even the EU, not known for its straight talking, has warned Saakashvili that it expects a free, fair and transparent election, and has emphasised that this is primarily his responsibility.

We cannot expect a country like Georgia, for so long under Moscow's domination, to become an established democracy overnight. But the EU should be clear with Tbilisi that its financial and political support for Georgia depends on democracy being strengthened, not undermined. Politics in Georgia, and indeed the debate that we in Europe are having about politics and political personalities in Georgia, needs to move beyond personal animosities and mud-slinging towards a more mature discourse, focused on the future. Georgia is facing many challenges internally and externally, but Georgians can ill afford for democracy itself to be under challenge.

FRONTLINE CLUB GEORGIA

Frontline Georgia is a media club that aims to serve as a politically-neutral venue for journalists, public officials, students, intellectuals come together in a dialogue over media, social, political and cultural issues important for Georgia and the region. Frontline Georgia holds panel discussions, screenings, exhibitions, conferences and master classes.

Frontline Georgia’s mission is to contribute to quality journalism and exchange of views. Its Events Program will bring together the key players and thinkers in politics and the media and give a member an opportunity not only to hear from experts but to ask questions and contribute to the discussion in a relaxed and informal atmosphere.

While there are other meeting places for important public discussions, Frontline Georgia is among the very few, where people from different ideological and political camps meet together. This neutrality has been one of the biggest achievements of the club, which operates in Georgia’s highly politicized and polarized social and media environment.

Ruth Olshan in her film portrays musicians who work with different approaches: a male choir searching and cultivating old folk songs in the Caucasus region, a female choir, a school dance company and musicians who enhance Georgian folk music. There is a common denominator that links the diverse protagonists in Olshan’s film: Singing, dancing and music are crucial elements of their lifestyle. Music is as important as “air to breath,” explains the director of the female choir . The subtle camera work discreetly catches moments and spontaneous encounters, showing that the rehearsals and the singing brings moments to these women where they are taken away from their normal course of life. For life in Rustavi, a small town near Tiflis, seems bleak. The industry is dead, the unemployment rate is enormous. You ask yourself how people can live. The choir women’s beauty and positive energy exude an affirmative sign of life, even in mournful moments. Men and women sing and dance both joy and sorrow off their chest. In Georgia, music seems to be omnipresent, almost existential. Even if a young singer does not think folk music is “sexy”, he still gets hooked. It gets under his skin. The film pays tribute to this fascination, vitality, and spiritedness.

IMPRESSUM

Disclaimer

Most of the material on this site is sourced from other online publishers. I hereby acknowledge the original authors of this material. This material does not always reflect the views and opinions of the webmaster.
This site does not host any of the videos found here, or upload them to the internet. Rather, we take advantage of existing material that has been uploaded by other parties.